Daily Archives: March 19, 2017

The request includes $5.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funds so the department can accelerate the campaign to defeat ISIS and support Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2017 In a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan today, President Donald J. Trump asked for another $30 billion for the Defense Department in this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, to rebuild the armed forces and accelerate the campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jeffery Self, 8th Security Forces Squadron, advances toward opposing forces during a training scenario at Kunsan Air Base, South as part of exercise Beverly Pack 17-2, a no-notice training exercise used to improve responses to base threats, March 7, 2017. President Donald J. Trump is asking Congress for an additional $30 billion in fiscal 2017 Defense Department funding to meet urgent military readiness needs. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Jeff Andrejcik

The fiscal 2017 budget amendment provides $24.9 billion in base funds for urgent warfighting readiness needs and to begin a sustained effort to rebuild the armed forces, according to the presidents letter.

The request seeks to address critical budget shortfalls in personnel, training, maintenance, equipment, munitions, modernization and infrastructure investment. It represents a critical first step in investing in a larger, more ready and more capable military force, Trump wrote.

The request includes $5.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funds so the department can accelerate the campaign to defeat ISIS and support Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Afghanistan, he said, noting that the request would enable DoD to pursue a comprehensive strategy to end the threat ISIS poses to the United States.

Continuing Resolution

At the Pentagon this afternoon, senior defense officials briefed reporters on the on the fiscal 2017 budget amendment. The speakers wereJohn P. Roth, performing the duties of undersecretary of defense-comptroller, andArmy Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Ierardi, director of force structure, resources and assessment on theJoint Staff.

Our request to Congress is that they pass a full-year defense appropriations bill, and that the bill includes the additional $30 billion, Roth said. We are now approaching the end of our sixth month under a continuing resolution, he added, one of the longest periods that we have ever been under a continuing resolution.

Crying Needs

The continuing resolution run for the rest of the fiscal year, Pentagon officials would find that extremely harmful to the defense program, Roth said.

We are essentially kind of muddling along right now in terms of borrowing resources against third- and fourth-quarter kinds of finances in order to keep things going, he said. But that game gets to be increasingly difficult as we go deeper into the fiscal year.

Under a continuing resolution, the department has to operate under a fiscal 2016 mandate, creating a large mismatch between operations funds and procurement funds, Roth explained. The department cant spend procurement dollars because theres a restriction on new starts and on increasing production, he said, but we have crying needs in terms of training, readiness, maintenance ... and in the operation and maintenance account.

The continuing resolution expires April 28, so before then, we would want a full appropriation and, of course, a full appropriation with this additional $30 billion, he said.

The Next Challenge

Roth said much of the money in the fiscal 2017 request is funding for operations and maintenance.

We're asking for additional equipment maintenance funding, additional facilities maintenance, spare parts, additional training events, peacetime flying hours, ship operations, munitions and those kinds of things, said he told reporters. This is the essence of what keeps this department running on a day-to-day basis. It keeps us up and allows us to get ready for whatever the next challenge is.

The officials said full support from Congress is key to improving warfighter readiness, providing the most capable modern force, and increasing the 2011 Budget Control Act funding cap for defense.

(Follow Cheryl Pellerin on Twitter @PellerinDoDNews)

Read the original here:

White House Requests $30 Billion More for US Military - to Rebuild ... - Scout

Because there is a conflict in district court rulings on his temporary travel restriction, President Trump could go ahead and implement it, some constitutional scholars believe.

The Trump administration Friday afternoon filed for an appeal of a Marylandfederal judges ruling that the revised ban violates the First Amendment by disfavoring a particular religion. The case goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

But a federal judge in Boston approved the original order, noted attorney Robert Barnes in an interview with XM Sirius radios Breitbart Daily News.

Barnes, arguing the Constitution and federal law give the president the authorityto restrict entry to the country, said Trumpcould always do a true Andrew Jackson, the last president to challenge a court usurping authority they did not have.

Jacksons response to the Supreme Court, in that instance, was: Well, theyve issued their decision; now, they can enforce it.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, Americas independent news network.

But Barnes noted Trump can argue that because the federal court in Boston approved Trumps Jan. 27 ban in a detailed 21-page order, the president would be in his legal rights to say: Theres a conflict between the courts. Until the Supreme Court addresses this, Im going to do whats appropriate to keep the country safe.'

Barnesacknowledged the media backlash that would ensue, but he noted that Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz made that argument when the Ninth Circuit upheld a block on the original order by a federal judge in Seattle.

A Hawaii judge also put a temporary block on Trumps revised ban, but an appeal of that casewould have gone to the same San Francisco-based appeals court that rejected the originalversion of the ban.

Barnes pointed out that theHawaii judge issued a nationwide injunction against Trumps order.

His basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens, Barnes told Breitbart Daily News.

Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights.

He explained the Constitution doesnt extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time.

The case was brought on behalf of Hawaiis leading Muslim imam, who wants to bring over family and friends fromSyria.

Trumps new order bars issuing visas to travelers from Syria and five other Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspends the entire U.S. refugee program for 120 days. It also caps the total number of refugees admitted this fiscal year at 50,000, instead of 110,000.

Hawaii contends Trumps order treats Muslims in the state as second class citizens, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The states petition cites comments by Trump and his surrogates during the campaign to argue that the temporary ban is motivated by animus toward Muslims, violating constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws.

The Hawaii judge, Barnes noted, ruled the imamhas a First Amendment constitutional right to oppose Trumps banbecause hes Muslim.

It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned, where the issue of terror arises from, that that meant they had a special right to visit the [United States], he said.

Barnes pointed outthat the judge did not cite any prior decision.

Barnesargued the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Din decision last year, implicitly ruledthe right to association does not include a right to bring foreigners into the United States.

When you have law professors like Jonathan Turley or Alan Dershowitz or Jeffrey Toobin saying that the prior Ninth Circuit decision which did not go as far as this case did, as the Hawaii judge did saying it basically is bad law, then you know how bad the law actually is, Barnes said.

Reasonable restrictions

WND reported last week that if the administration continues to be thwarted by federal courts, it could implement an alternative security measure that would be authorized by the statute cited in the presidents executive order,according to a prominent Georgetown University professor.

John Banzhaf noted in an interview with WND that Germanys cabinet last month approved a measure allowing GPS ankle tracking devices for individuals who are suspected of posing a terrorist threat but havent been charged or convicted.

Banzhaf pointed out the U.S. law cited in the Trump order, 8 USC 1182(f), gives the president the authority to impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, Americas independent news network.

If the federal-court block on the travel ban continues or the Trump administration loses the case, Banzhaf said, I think they would do well to consider the second part of that article, which permits the president to put any reasonable restrictions on which he wishes.

Its the first part of the statute, he said, that gives the president the authority to ban certain travelers.

It says that he can make an order based upon class of person. And I think any reasonable reading of that doesnt mean hes going to differentiate based upon tall people or short people or whether they have long noses or short noses, Banzhof explained.

When you say class, youre talking about ethnicity, youre talking about religion, youre talking about country of origin, he said.

The statute reads:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Trump is telling us, the Georgetown professor said, that based upon the very weak governmental structure, bordering on chaos, in many of these countries, it is virtually impossible to reasonably vet them, to be able to say beyond any reasonable suspicion these are not, in his words, bad dudes.'

The rest is here:

Trump could 'do an Andrew Jackson' to save travel ban - WND.com

SACRAMENTO >> The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Religious Freedom Act (Senate Bill 31) by a vote of 5-0 with two members abstaining. Senate Bill 31 prevents California agencies from sharing data that could be used to compile a federal registry based on religion, national origin or ethnicity.

Even our basic American values are being tested by the federal government and the current administration, and the Religious Freedom Act will prevent California from participating in the creation of a discriminatory and ineffective religious registry that tramples on the U.S. Constitution, said Sen. Lara.

On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump proposed a Muslim registry.

No fiscal impact of Senate Bill 31 was found. The California Religious Freedom Act will soon be scheduled for a vote by the full Senate.

Speakers in support of Senate Bill 31 included Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Council on American Islamic Relations, Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights Los Angeles, the California Catholic Conference, the Sierra Club, the California Faculty Association, the California Federation of Teachers, the City of Long Beach, the City and County of San Francisco and the office of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, the office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, California Labor Federation, the State Building and Construction Trades Council, SEIU California, PICO California, ACLU of California, NextGen Climate, Public Counsel, California Immigrant Policy Center, Equality California, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center.

Advertisement

Read this article:

Religion Freedom Act advances from committee - Record Bee